« ElőzőTovább »
AR 484 647 Randall, Head v. 279 Richards v. Richards 500 Richardson v. Larpent 582 Rider v. Jones 616 -v. Sturgis 318 Rivers, Sherwood v. 336 Roynon, Silcock v. 283 Russell, Gibson v.
91 1991 525 354
Salisbury v. Hatcher
Sayer v. Wagstaff
Smith Foster v. 529
- v. Lyne Snowball v. Proctor Spencer, Beales v.
Stavers v. Barnard 299
Stephens v. Lawry
Sturgis, Rider v.
DELL v. Hale. 1842: Nov. 7th. The 36th of the Orders of August, 1842, is not applicable to the case where there is something of a specific and particular nature in the bill which the demurrer has not covered.
The bill alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant Hale had obtained a patent for making gun cases; that disputes having arisen between the parties they were desirous of dissolving their connection, and that after various previous conversations and discussions on the subject, a negotiation took place between the plaintiff and the defendant on the terms of such proposed dissolution. That in reference to this matter the defendant, on the 20 May, 1842, wrote and sent to the plaintiff a letter in the words and figures following, &c., and that in reply to such letter, the plaintiff on the same day wrote and sent to the defendant a letter which was as follows, &c. That the plaintiff having by the last-mentioned letter accepted the proposal contained in the defendant's letter for an assignment of his interest to the plaintiff and a dissolution of the partnership, the said two letters constituted a complete and valid contract and agreement binding upon both parties. The bill after charging that the patent was a good, valid, and subsisting patent, and that an assignment ought to be *made to the plaintiff of the defendant's share, pray- [*2] ed a declaration that the letters constituted in equity a complete, valid, and binding agreement between the parties, and